Hauenstein v. Loctite Corp.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
PETERSON, Justice.
This is a personal injury action brought by appellant, Ward Hauenstein, seeking damages for a serious injury sustained to one of his eyes while using Loctite Retaining Compound No. 35 (RC-35), an adhesive produced by respondent, The Loctite Corporation.1 Hauenstein alleged that Loctite was strictly liable and liable in negligence solely for failure to warn Hauenstein that RC-35 contained acrylic acid and could cause blindness if it contacted eye tissue. The trial court submitted both theories to the jury. The jury made the following findings by special verdict:
1. Was…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lesmeister v. DillySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Jacobs v. Rosemount Dodge-Winnebago SouthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Flom v. FlomSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Seivert v. BassSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by73 opinions
- Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Craft v. PeeblesHawaii Supreme Court · 1995
- Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- George v. Estate of BakerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.